7,011 research outputs found

    Cash Versus In-Kind Transfers: Comparative Differences and Individual Best Practices to Benefit Recipient Communities

    Get PDF
    This research paper seeks to compare cash and in-kind transfers in the context of foreign poverty aid to determine which transfer style is most beneficial and to evaluate long-term best practices of each kind to more positively benefit the recipient communities. It does this by comparing arguments for and against each transfer model. The first argument discusses the differences in distribution costs between the two models. The second compares the cash transfer’s strong concept of choice with in-kind transfer’s typical style of controlled consumption of goods. The second argument discusses the timing and impact of targeting communities in connection to each transfer style. Finally, the last argument discusses the contrasting macroeconomic impact each style has on local markets. Cash transfers are predetermined cash donations given either as a lump sum or in periodic transfers. Conversely, in-kind transfers are direct transfers of physical goods distributed to households. This paper maintains that both transfer styles have the capability of being beneficial if they are planned and executed with extensive knowledge of the unique local community, its needs, the economic and social effects of each transfer style, and a purposeful design aimed at long-term growth and empowerment of communities

    Robustness of 3D Deep Learning in an Adversarial Setting

    Full text link
    Understanding the spatial arrangement and nature of real-world objects is of paramount importance to many complex engineering tasks, including autonomous navigation. Deep learning has revolutionized state-of-the-art performance for tasks in 3D environments; however, relatively little is known about the robustness of these approaches in an adversarial setting. The lack of comprehensive analysis makes it difficult to justify deployment of 3D deep learning models in real-world, safety-critical applications. In this work, we develop an algorithm for analysis of pointwise robustness of neural networks that operate on 3D data. We show that current approaches presented for understanding the resilience of state-of-the-art models vastly overestimate their robustness. We then use our algorithm to evaluate an array of state-of-the-art models in order to demonstrate their vulnerability to occlusion attacks. We show that, in the worst case, these networks can be reduced to 0% classification accuracy after the occlusion of at most 6.5% of the occupied input space.Comment: 10 pages, 8 figures, 1 tabl

    Clustering of Local Group distances: publication bias or correlated measurements? I. The Large Magellanic Cloud

    Full text link
    The distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) represents a key local rung of the extragalactic distance ladder. Yet, the galaxy's distance modulus has long been an issue of contention, in particular in view of claims that most newly determined distance moduli cluster tightly - and with a small spread - around the "canonical" distance modulus, (m-M)_0 = 18.50 mag. We compiled 233 separate LMC distance determinations published between 1990 and 2013. Our analysis of the individual distance moduli, as well as of their two-year means and standard deviations resulting from this largest data set of LMC distance moduli available to date, focuses specifically on Cepheid and RR Lyrae variable-star tracer populations, as well as on distance estimates based on features in the observational Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. We conclude that strong publication bias is unlikely to have been the main driver of the majority of published LMC distance moduli. However, for a given distance tracer, the body of publications leading to the tightly clustered distances is based on highly non-independent tracer samples and analysis methods, hence leading to significant correlations among the LMC distances reported in subsequent articles. Based on a careful, weighted combination, in a statistical sense, of the main stellar population tracers, we recommend that a slightly adjusted canonical distance modulus of (m-M)_0 = 18.49 +- 0.09 mag be used for all practical purposes that require a general distance scale without the need for accuracies of better than a few percent.Comment: 35 pages (AASTeX preprint format), 5 postscript figures; AJ, in press. For full database of LMC distance moduli, see http://astro-expat.info/Data/pubbias.htm
    • …
    corecore